LINKS

CURRENT STUDENTS

OU Law enrolls approximately 500 students annually in its Juris Doctor (JD) and Master of Laws (LL.M.) degree programs. The John B. Turner LL.M. Program attracts students worldwide wishing to specialize in the college’s core areas: energy, natural resources and Native American law. Students also have the opportunity to earn joint degrees, travel abroad and gain practical experience through numerous clinics, competitions and legal publications at OU Law. They also provide valuable legal services to the public through the OU Legal Clinic and Students for Access to Justice.

LINKS

FACULTY / STAFF

The University of Oklahoma College of Law has retained an outstanding full-time law faculty to provide our students with an unequalled legal education experience. Combined with the numerous adjunct specialists who teach various subjects from the practitioner's point of view, we have assembled an exceptional instructional corps.

LINKS

ALUMNI / DONORS

We are so appreciative of the support OU College of Law receives from donors. Their support enhances our academic and scholarship programs, allowing OU Law to provide a quality legal education at a reasonable cost.

When I meet with alumni, I am always amazed to discover how many have never made it back to Norman. While I encourage you to come tour the campus (you won’t believe the changes!), I am equally as eager to come visit you in your hometowns. I hope to see you at an upcoming alumni event.

LINKS

VISITORS

The University of Oklahoma College of Law is one of our nation’s great public law schools. Founded in 1909, OU Law provides a dynamic intellectual community dedicated to teaching, learning, research and service in the pursuit of law and justice. OU Law delivers an exemplary legal education at an accessible cost to students and is consistently recognized as a “Best Value” law school by National Jurist magazine.

Vol. 1 (2003-2004)

Joe Zopolsky, an attorney in Dallas, Texas, has been published several times before in prestigious law reviews nationwide. He has studied in Mexico, Spain, and Argentina and served as the assistant managing editor of the International Trade Law Journal. Thus, Mr. Zopolsky has in depth knowledge of global issues concerning our world today. Mr. Zopolsky provides insight into the current status of censorship on the Internet, globally and domestically. Ultimately, Mr. Zopolsky calls for individual and familial responsibility and makes the argument against censoring the Internet on both the international and domestic levels.

Scott Griner, a 2003 University of Oklahoma Law School graduate introduces us to the FBI's email monitoring system, Carnivore. After a brief description of Carnivore and its use in criminal investigations, Mr. Griner analyzes Carnivore under the Fourth Amendment. Finally, Mr. Griner examines The USA PATRIOT Act's impact on the FBI's use of Carnivore and the future of electronic surveillance and searches.

Matt Rodgers, a 2003 graduate of the University of Oklahoma College of Law, provides this insight into the current status of attorney-client privilege in patent litigation. The Federal Circuit recently resolved a legal dispute that had split district courts for several decades regarding the application of the privilege in patent litigation. Some circuits followed the theory that patent attorneys act as mere conduits to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Since their clients had no expectation of confidentiality, the communications were not privileged. Other circuits reasoned that patent attorneys are more than mere conduits, and that communications from client to patent attorney should be accorded the same protection as any other legal communication. The Federal Circuit held in In re Spalding Sports Worldwide that communications between a client and patent attorney are privileged, even if they contain mostly technical data, as long as the communication was made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.

William E. Hickman is a registered patent attorney and associate at the law firm of Haynes & Boone, where his practice includes patent prosecution and litigation. He was awarded a J.D. from the University of Houston Law Center, and two B.S. degrees from Texas A&M University. He is currently pursuing his L.L.M., specializing in Intellectual Property Law at the University of Houston Law Center. He is licensed to practice in California and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. Hickman can be reached via email at will.hickman@haynesboone.com or by phone at 713-547-2040.

Michelle Saquet Temple is a registered patent attorney and the owner of the Temple Patent Law Office in Canterbury, New Hampshire where her practice includes patent prosecution in the fields of software and bioinformatics. Ms. Temple was awarded her J.D. from Franklin Pierce Law Center and her B.S. from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. She is licensed to practice in New Hampshire and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Ms. Temple can be reached via email at shelly@patentsomething.com or by phone at 603-783-8998.

Melody Wirz is a registered patent agent and has received a B.S. from Oklahoma State University as well as an M.B.A. from Oklahoma City University. Ms. Wirz addresses current legislative loopholes concerning patents on pharmaceutical drugs as well as the effect legal monopolies have on generic drug entry into the marketplace. She would also like to extend her gratitude and thankfulness to her husband, Trey Wirz. Without his support, her success, both at law school and in life, would not be possible.

Emily Short, a 2004 J.D. candidate at the University of Oklahoma, is the Managing Editor of the Oklahoma Journal of Law and Technology and the Marketing Editor of Oklahoma Law Review. In this e-brief, Ms. Short examines the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to the Internet. This e-brief analyzes Access Now v. Southwest Airlines. Part I assesses the history and background of the ADA’s application to technology by examining the statute and subsequent case law. Part II presents the facts, procedural history, holding, and reasoning of Access Now. Finally, Part III explores the court’s reasoning, and details its implications to future plaintiffs attempting to apply the ADA to the Internet. Specifically, Part III examines problems surrounding increased accessibility, government agencies’ accessibility plans, and concerns regarding judicial activism.

Ms. Mota is a professor of legal studies at Bowling Green State University. She obtained her J.D. from The University of Toledo College of Law and her M.A. and B.A. from Bowling Green State University. Below, Ms. Mota briefly outlines recent litigation concerning the unaccredited copying of an uncopyrighted work, and provides a critical analysis of the ethical dilemma arising out of Dastar.

Matt Sellers has extensive experience in computer programming and web development, including the creation of an ordering system and online streaming video program for Oklahoma lawyers pursuing Continuing Legal Education courses. He also worked as a web developer for Jupiter Media Metrix, where he used the Internet to promote IT events. Below, this author outlines recent litigation concerning Verizon Internet Services and Recording Industry Association of America, including an exploratory discussion on the issues of the constitutionality and the purview of subpoena power under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Chris Kannady gives this overview of the do-not-call list dilemma. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) was enacted in order to protect residential telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid telephone solicitations. However, in 2002, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) began the process of creating the current nationwide do-not-call list that the FTC, not individual telemarketing organizations, would maintain. Within one year, the do-not-call list was finalized and ready to open for public registration. It did not take long before telemarketers filed suit to block the list. This article provides a detailed discussion of the litigation initiated by telemarketers in an attempt to invalidate the do-not-call list. Since the telemarketing industry stands to lose billions of dollars if the list continues to operate, litigation concerning this matter is likely to continue.

Stacey Knapp obtained her J.D. from Stetson University College of Law located in St. Petersburg, Florida. She is currently working as a sole practitioner in Galena, Illinois. Below, Ms. Knapp explores the conflict concerning the control of domain names (i.e. trademarks) as well as the relationship between businesses and non-mark holder uses under the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) which has advantaged trademark holders to the detriment of fair use, especially in parody and protest uses.

Dr. Alexander Zinser, LL.M., is a Senior Attorney at Agilent Technologies International, Sarl, Morges, Switzerland, a subsidiary of Agilent Technologies Inc., Palo Alto, California. Below, Dr. Zinser provides an overview of the European Data Protection Directive (“Directive”), with particular emphasis on international data transfers of personal information be-tween the European Union and the United States. Part I provides a comparative look into the different approaches to data protection taken by the United States and the European Union. Part II and III, respectively, discuss Safe Harbor Principles available to U.S. companies that voluntarily choose to adhere to certain data protection guidelines and the legal basis for the Safe Harbor arrangement derived from the Directive. Part IV offers a comprehensible breakdown of each Safe Harbor Principle as well as ancillary provisions regarding dispute resolution and enforcement of the Principles. Lastly, Part V defines the powers of the European states and authorities with regard to violations of the Principles.

Jessica Herndon is currently pursuing a J.D. at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. In this work, Ms. Herndon sheds critical light on how Internet software is used to cyberstalk children; an issue that has not been adequately addressed by the federal government. If this type of activity were officially deemed as targeting children, Congress may be able to use the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”) to regulate Peer-to-Peer (“P2P”) programs, such as KaZaA.

Susan A. Russell is currently completing her LL.M. in Intellectual Property Law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. In the fall of 2004, she will begin the J.S.D. program at the Berkeley School of Law. Below, Ms. Russell focuses on one facet of the Internet—webcasting. Part I of this article gives an overview of webcasting itself. Part II identifies the groups and their arguments in the debate over webcasting. Part III provides a critical review of the legislative history on webcasting by looking at the various acts passed by Congress. As webcasting significantly resembles radio broadcasting, the question is raised as to why Congress requires webcasters to pay royalty fees on any music they distribute over their lines, while not requiring the same for radiobroadcasters. Ms. Russell addresses this perplexity by providing comprehensible insight into the future of webcasting in Part IV.